Which GOP Candidate Would The Founders Support?...

[The T]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it.

Yeah, the Founders believed in the institution, with some exceptions.

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

However it was the first step in eliminating slavery in the Republic and keeping the Union together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The T failed American history.

The 3/5 enshrined slavery in the Constitution. There was no inevitable "next step". The fugitive slaw law in the Constitution enshrined slavery. There was no inevitable "next step.:"

You fail at this every time.

 

[Contumacious]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it.

Yeah, the Founders believed in the institution, with some exceptions.

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

What is the difference between the slavery imposed by the Southern states and the one being impose by Washington, DC?

.

 

[The T]

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

What is the difference between the slavery imposed by the Southern states and the one being impose by Washington, DC?

.

None.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

What is the difference between the slavery imposed by the Southern states and the one being impose by Washington, DC?

.

None.

One difference the slaves from the 1800's knew what they were.

The slaves now don't.

 

[Full-Auto]

The T failed American history.

The 3/5 enshrined slavery in the Constitution. There was no inevitable "next step". The fugitive slaw law in the Constitution enshrined slavery. There was no inevitable "next step.:"

You fail at this every time.

You forgot to add, in your opinion. Because you havent offered anything else.

Again I will add.

 

[The T]

What is the difference between the slavery imposed by the Southern states and the one being impose by Washington, DC?

.

None.

One difference the slaves from the 1800's knew what they were.

The slaves now don't.

Good observation. Today's slaves have bought into the line by thier Gubmint masters that they are nothing without gubmint help...and not to mention those yet to be born already are slaves to the Gubmint to pay of the massive debt folly imposed by gubmint.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

However it was the first step in eliminating slavery in the Republic and keeping the Union together.

No it wasn't

If anything, it was when the south realized that 3/5 was no longer enough for them to maintain political control that they revolted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The T failed American history.

The 3/5 enshrined slavery in the Constitution. There was no inevitable "next step". The fugitive slaw law in the Constitution enshrined slavery. There was no inevitable "next step.:"

You fail at this every time.

You forgot to add, in your opinion. Because you havent offered anything else.

Again I will add.

No opinion, fact. That is what the Founders did. There was no inevitably.

 

[Liberty]

Liberty, the Constitution protected slavery. It took a Civil War and the 13th Amendment to end it.

Yeah, the Founders believed in the institution, with some exceptions.

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

Maybe, but because of it the southern states never had a majority in Congress, which was the whole point. Moron.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

What is the difference between the slavery imposed by the Southern states and the one being impose by Washington, DC?

.

We can start with nobody can take your children away from you and sell them

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only inevitability was that the South would revolt when and if the time came that slavery would have to end.

We see the economic masters today in the same position as the slave owners then. The owners are scared, they should be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

Maybe, but because of it the southern states never had a majority in Congress, which was the whole point. Moron.

That was never the point in the first place. The point was the Constitution enshrined the legality of slavery and the 3/5ths power was to further protect that.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll take "What is the 3/5ths Compromise..." for $1,000 Alex...

Jackass

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

Maybe, but because of it the southern states never had a majority in Congress, which was the whole point. Moron.

The south should have gotten no credit for slaves since they themselves did not consider them people. If they wanted them to count, they should have freed them

 

[Full-Auto]

The T failed American history.

The 3/5 enshrined slavery in the Constitution. There was no inevitable "next step". The fugitive slaw law in the Constitution enshrined slavery. There was no inevitable "next step.:"

You fail at this every time.

You forgot to add, in your opinion. Because you havent offered anything else.

Again I will add.

No opinion, fact. That is what the Founders did. There was no inevitably.

Something about all men tells me you are dead wrong.

 

[Liberty]

It was a protection of slavery to give southern states more legislative power than they deserved

Maybe, but because of it the southern states never had a majority in Congress, which was the whole point. Moron.

The south should have gotten no credit for slaves since they themselves did not consider them people. If they wanted them to count, they should have freed them

Then the States would have been separate countries. Would that have been better?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The slaves would not have been bothered either way. They would still be slaves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You forgot to add, in your opinion. Because you havent offered anything else.

Again I will add.

No opinion, fact. That is what the Founders did. There was no inevitably.

Something about all men tells me you are dead wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Liberty]

The slaves would not have been bothered either way. They would still be slaves.

You lack the capacity to think outside your own tunnel vision, so I am going to say what I normally say to you...read a book.

 

[Full-Auto]

No opinion, fact. That is what the Founders did. There was no inevitably.

Something about all men tells me you are dead wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Just so we understand that is all you have.